Premium Aircraft Parts v. Circuit Court

• Citation: 69 S.W.3d 849,347 Ark. 977
• Decision Date: 14 March 2002
• Docket Number: No. 01-888.,01-888.
• Parties: PREMIUM AIRCRAFT PARTS, LLC, and Christopher Roger Baker v. The CIRCUIT COURT OF CARROLL COUNTY; The Honorable Alan D. Epley, Judge; Performance Aircraft Parts, Inc., and Performance Aircraft Power Plants, Inc.
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

69 S.W.3d 849

347 Ark. 977

PREMIUM AIRCRAFT PARTS, LLC, and Christopher Roger Baker v. The CIRCUIT COURT OF CARROLL COUNTY; The Honorable Alan D. Epley, Judge; Performance Aircraft Parts, Inc., and Performance Aircraft Power Plants, Inc.

No. 01-888.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 14, 2002.

Hardin, Jesson & Terry, PLC, by: Robert M. Honea, Fort Smith, for petitioners.

Vowell & Atchley, by Russell C. Atchley, P.A., Fort Smith, for respondents.

ANNABELLE CLINTON IMBER, Justice.

A writ of prohibition is sought to prohibit the Carroll County Circuit Court from proceeding in connection with an action brought by Performance Aircraft Parts, Inc., and Performance Aircraft Power Plants, Inc., against Premium Aircraft Parts, LLC, and Christopher Baker.¹ In support of the petition, Premium and Baker argue that Performance may not bring an action for misappropriation of trade secrets, dilution of trade name, or breach of fiduciary duty in the county of its residence pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 16-60-113(a) (1987). We agree and grant the writ.

On March 27, 2001, Performance filed a complaint in Carroll County Chancery Court alleging that Premium, a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Sebastian County, and Baker, a resident of Sebastian County, had misappropriated trade secrets in the form of customer lists and vendor lists, and that Premium's use of the trade name "P.A.P., Inc." was likely (1) to dilute the distinctive quality of the trade name and (2) to cause injury to the businesses and reputation of Performance. The complaint also alleged that Baker had breached his fiduciary duty to Performance and its shareholders. Baker was terminated as an employee of Performance on or about March 2, 2001. Shortly thereafter, he and co-defendant William DeArman, a resident of Texas, formed Premium, which is a competitor of Performance in the purchase and sale of aircraft parts. In its prayer for relief, Performance seeks compensatory damages and the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining Premium and Baker from using Performance's customer lists and vendor lists, and enjoining Premium from using the trade name "P.A.P., Inc.," and certain telephone numbers.

The petitioners and DeArman moved to dismiss on the basis of improper venue contending that they are not residents of Carroll County, that they were not served there, and that there is no basis under the governing venue statute, Ark.Code. Ann. § 16-60-116 (1987), for laying venue in Carroll County. The motion to dismiss was granted as to the only cause of action against DeArman. The circuit court, however, denied the motion as to Premium and Baker, finding that "the Plaintiffs' other causes of action assert claims for conversion of personal property within the meaning of A.C.A. § 16-60-113," and concluding that venue is proper in Carroll County as to the claims asserted by "the Plaintiffs' against the separate Defendant Premium Aircraft Parts, LLC, and Christopher Baker as Carroll County is the residence of the Plaintiffs for venue purposes."²

The petitioners next filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in this court, contending that venue was not proper in Carroll County. In response, Performance asserts that its action against the petitioners should be allowed to remain in Carroll County pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 16-60-113(a), and the writ should be denied.

A writ of prohibition is an original action in this court under which we may consider the issue of whether venue is proper in the Carroll County Circuit Court. In Willis v. Circuit Court of Phillips County, 342 Ark. 128, 27 S.W.3d 372 (2000) (per curiam), we stated the requirements for a writ of prohibition:

A writ of prohibition is extraordinary relief which is appropriate only when the trial court is wholly without jurisdiction. The writ is appropriate only when there is no other remedy, such as an appeal, available. When deciding whether prohibition will lie, we confine our review to the pleadings in the case.

Id. at 131, 27 S.W.3d at 374 (citations omitted). Where the issue of the writ of prohibition alleges improper venue, this court will grant the writ only when there are no disputed facts regarding venue. Henderson Specialties Inc. v. Boone County Circuit Court, 334 Ark. 111, 971 S.W.2d 234 (1998). Furthermore, we will look only to the pleadings to determine if a complaint lacks sufficient facts to support venue, and we ascertain the character of the action and the primary right asserted from the face of the complaint. Id.

In Quinney v. Pittman, 320 Ark. 177, 183, 895 S.W.2d 538, 541 (1995), we stated that "[i]t is our fundamental duty, of course, to give effect to the legislative purpose set by the venue statutes." The two venue statutes at issue are sections 16-60-113(a) and 16-60-116(a). Section 16-60-113(a) is the specific venue statute for actions for damages to personal property by wrongful or negligent action. Specifically, it provides:

(a) Any action for damages to personal property by wrongful or negligent act, whether arising from contract, tort, or conversion of personal property, may be brought either in the county where the damage occurred, or in the county where the property was converted, or in the county of residence of the person who was the owner of the property at the time the cause of action arose.

Ark.Code Ann. § 16-60-113(a) (1987). Section 16-60-116(a) governs other actions and provides: "(a) Every other action may be brought in any county in which the defendant, or one (1) of several defendants, resides or is summoned." Ark.Code Ann. § 16-60-116(a) (1987).

This court reviews issues of statutory construction de novo, as it is for this court to decide what a statute means. Stephens v. Arkansas School for the Blind, 341 Ark. 939, 20 S.W.3d 397 (2000); Hodges v. Huckabee, 338 Ark. 454, 995 S.W.2d 341 (1999). In this respect, we are not bound by the trial court's decision; however, in the absence of a showing that the trial court erred, its interpretation will be accepted as correct on appeal. Stephens v. Arkansas School for the Blind, supra. The basic rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. Ford v. Keith, 338 Ark. 487, 996 S.W.2d 20 (1999). In determining the meaning of a statute, the first rule is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. Id. If the language of a statute is unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to rules of statutory interpretation. Id.

Section 16-60-113(a) first identifies the type of action and then specifies where venue is proper. The claim must state a cause of "action for damages to personal property by wrongful or negligent act." The cause of action may arise from "contract, tort, or conversion of personal property." If these requirements are met, venue is proper in any of the following counties: the county where the damage occurred; the county where the property was converted; or the county in which the plaintiff resides.

Section 16-60-113(a) fails, however, to specify the type of damages or the type of personal property that must be the subject of the action. It, therefore, falls to this court to construe the phrase "damages to personal property." Where the meaning of a statutory phrase or term is not clear, we look to the language of the statute, the subject matter, the object to be accomplished, the purpose to be served, the remedy provided, the legislative history, and other appropriate means that shed light on the subject. Ford v. Keith, supra. A review of the history of the statute and our case law reveals that there must be physical damage to tangible personal property.

Section 16-60-113(a) traces its origins to Act 314 of 1939, the Venue Act, which permitted an action for personal injury or wrongful death to be filed in the county where the accident occurred or in the county where the person injured or killed resided at the time of the injury. First-South, F.A. v. Yates, 286 Ark. 82, 689 S.W.2d 532 (1985). The Venue Act had a defect in that a plaintiff might have to sue for personal injuries in one of two counties and sue for damages to the car in yet a third county where the defendant resided. Id. The legislature corrected that defect by Act 182 of 1947 that permitted an action for damages to personal property by wrongful or negligent act to be brought in either the county where the accident occurred or in the county where the owner of the property resided at the time of the accident. Act 182 of 1947.³ In 1952, we held that the 1947 amendments did not provide for venue where the action was based on conversion of personal property. Terry v. Plunkett-Jarrell Grocery Co., 220 Ark. 3, 246 S.W.2d 415 (1952). Twenty-five years later, the legislature amended the venue statute to include conversion of personal property. Act 830 of 1977.⁴ After the 1977 amendments, we held that venue did not lie where the action arose out of a contract and did not involve an accident or violence or a conversion. Hooper v. Zajac, 275 Ark. 5, 627 S.W.2d 2 (1982). See also Beatty v. Ponder, 278 Ark. 41, 642 S.W.2d 891 (1982). In 1983, the legislature again amended the statute to extend the reference to wrongful or negligent acts by the addition of "whether arising from contract, tort, or conversion," and to substitute the words "where the damage occurred" for the phrase "where the accident occurred." Act 642 of 1983.⁵

Since 1983, three decisions by this court have addressed the type of damage and the type of personal property contemplated under section 16-60-113(a). In First-South, F.A. v. Yates, the complaint alleged that FirstSouth misrepresented the Sundance project as a new development when in fact the loan was to restructure an existing development. The complaint also alleged that FirstSouth negligently failed to investigate the guarantor's...